Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J. :-

CM-4447-C-2019 in RA-RS-34-2019 in RSA-820-1996

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 2512 days in filing the review application.

It has been averred in the application that the applicant gained knowledge about the decision dated 27.03.2012 in the main appeal only when one of the tenants of the suit property, namely, Malkiat Singh informed him about the ejectment petition filed by Naveen Aggarwal before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, claiming himself to be its 100 % owner. It has further been averred that Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh entered into compromise illegally on the basis of the power of attorney, whereas, he was never authorized in this regard. It was thus argued by learned counsel for the respondent / applicant that sufficient explanation was provided in the application which could not be termed as an “excuse”.

This application was vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the appellants/non-applicants while submitting that no sufficient reasons were specified for the delay and even the specific date on which the knowledge about the aforesaid decision was obtained was never disclosed and therefore, this application was liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

i. “Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors.”, reported as 2022(1) RCR (Civil) 505

ii. “Ramlal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.”, reported as 1962 AIR (Supreme Court) 361

iii. “P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala”, reported as 1997(4) RCR (Civil) 242

iv. “T. Lakshmi Vs. 1.M. Vasantha”, Judgment dated 30.03.2022 passed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case bearing no C.M.P (MD) No.10954 of 2021

v. “The Union of India owning Southern Railway rep by its General Manager, Chennai 600003 Vs. Kommu Sumathi and Ors.”, Judgment dated 01.02.2021 passed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case bearing M.P. No.1 of 2010 in CMA Sr. No.64708 of 2010

vi. “United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kandukuri Swarupa Rani and 5 others”, reported as 2021(1) TAC 259

vii. “Deepak Bajpai vs State Government of NCT of Delhi & another”, reported as 2017(4) JCC 2751

In a recent judgment titled as “Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India and another”, reported as 2023 (10) SCC 531, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that Courts must distinguish between an `explanation’ and an `excuse’ in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, while deciding an application for the condonation of delay. Relevant para of this judgement is reproduced below:

“29. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an `explanation’ and an `excuse’. An `explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an `explanation’ from an `excuse’. Although people tend to see `explanation’ and `excuse’ as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. An `excuse’ is often offe